Sorry to post this here, but I thought that some of you guys might like to be informed on this decision by the government and might (like me) decide to not take this lying down.
Here's the deal;
On July 12, 2004, Agriculture Secretary Veneman announced a blazing rollback of the popular Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule, put into place in 2001, protected 58.5 million acres, 1/3 of National Forest system lands, from most logging, mining and roadbuilding. These 58.5 million acres, some of the last roadless lands in the US, provide clean drinking water for over 300 watersheds that WE get water out of, provide habitat to numerous animals and plants (many of which are endangered), and are some of the last federal forest lands we can give to our children that have not been majorly disrupted by humans.
Unfortunatley, the USDA has revamped the rule. Now the protections are only put in place temporarly (about 18 months), and after that, it is up to each state's governor to petition for protection of the lands previously protected under the law. As there is no guarantee the governors will make such petitions, and no guarantee the federal government will approve them, this is basically a huge rollback of forest protections. Our drinking water, endangered species, and natural heritage is at risk.
The forestry department is accepting comments on the issue up to September 12. Let us send them a message: This is not responsible forestry. This is a selling off of our last roadless lands.
This is a message that the environmental group (Avalanche Environmental Service Organization) that I'm VP of has been sending out to everyone we know. This is a very serious issue, and actions need to be taken.
For more information you can go to http://roadless.fs.fed.us/.
Steps that my organization has taken here in Oregon so far are:
1) Writing letters to our government officials urging them to take a stand on this and congratulating them when they do.
2) Writing letters and submitting e-mails to the local papers, (i.e. letters to the editor, stuff like that) trying to get articles about this published to spread the word.
3) Formally filing a comment through http://roadless.fs.fed.us/#comments to Agriculture Secretary Veneman.
4) Informing everyone we know of the situation and getting them to understand the severity of this issue.
5) Starting petitions throughout the local cities and encouraging others to do the same, whether they be in a different city, state, or country. The more support we can get for this the better chance we have of getting through to the powers at be.
If any of you are interested, then you can e-mail either me or my buddy for more information:
David Adams; Vice-President of AESO
e-mail: environmentalman2001@yahoo.com
AOL sn: chax2345
Please let us know that you are interested and what state you are from. This would be a big help. Thank you all very much ^_^.
Edited, Wed Jul 21 16:46:18 2004 by Vinas
Edited, Thu Jul 22 19:37:23 2004 by Vinas
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- important political issue
important political issueFollow
Pssssst! Hey you! Yeah, you. Guess what? Logging is good for the enviroment. It stops things like what happened in LA and San Diego last year from happening. So get that pine cone outta yer a$$ and stop spamming us with tree hugging booolsh1t.
Totem
Totem
Totem, can you give us some sources please?
While I can't change your opinion Totem, maybe I can help enlighten other people before they go down the same path of destructiveness you have taken. I read you posts on global warming, and although you seem like a very astute person, I believe that you are mistaken in your beliefs. Oh well, to each his own.
As for your point of logging being good for the environment, in certain cases it is. Although forest fires are a natural and healthy thing for the planet, with our growing civilization we can't always let them go. They cause damage to our cities and some of the population and can be dangerous when combined with humans.
The forests being spoken of in this Roadless Act are National Forests however. These are mainly old-growth forests, most of which have never had roads in them (hence the name). These serve as very important aspects as well in global warming (i.e. they filter out pollutants that contribute to the greenhouse effect).
There is no need to log these forests for lumber, as we can get that from privately owned lands and from recycling properly. Likewise, the need to thin these forests out to prevent forest fire is unneccessary. These forests cover 58.2 million acres, but seeing as how they are Old-Growth forests, that means that they have no human development in them, and so a forest-fire would serve the purpose of replenishing the forest (a natural occurence that has been occurring for thousands of years).
To cut down these forests (or even to allow the ability for that to happen) would be a crime agianst humanity (or treemaninty, whatever works for you). That is what the new repealment of this would cause, and we're doing our damndest to fix this.
Totem, the fact that you believe that just because someone cares about the environment and likes to look ahead to try and fix things before they are f***ed up shows a lot about you. Perhaps if you tried researching both sides of the arguement and looked merely at the facts rather than what is the typical reaction for you (disagreeing and putting down those that you don't agree with) then you would agree with me.
I would like to thank you for voicing your opinion however. It was a good chance for me to back up my stance on this with some hard evidence. Criticism is always welcomed, and I appreciate the opportunity to further examine my stance on this.
Edited, Wed Jul 21 20:52:09 2004 by Vinas
As for your point of logging being good for the environment, in certain cases it is. Although forest fires are a natural and healthy thing for the planet, with our growing civilization we can't always let them go. They cause damage to our cities and some of the population and can be dangerous when combined with humans.
The forests being spoken of in this Roadless Act are National Forests however. These are mainly old-growth forests, most of which have never had roads in them (hence the name). These serve as very important aspects as well in global warming (i.e. they filter out pollutants that contribute to the greenhouse effect).
There is no need to log these forests for lumber, as we can get that from privately owned lands and from recycling properly. Likewise, the need to thin these forests out to prevent forest fire is unneccessary. These forests cover 58.2 million acres, but seeing as how they are Old-Growth forests, that means that they have no human development in them, and so a forest-fire would serve the purpose of replenishing the forest (a natural occurence that has been occurring for thousands of years).
To cut down these forests (or even to allow the ability for that to happen) would be a crime agianst humanity (or treemaninty, whatever works for you). That is what the new repealment of this would cause, and we're doing our damndest to fix this.
Totem, the fact that you believe that just because someone cares about the environment and likes to look ahead to try and fix things before they are f***ed up shows a lot about you. Perhaps if you tried researching both sides of the arguement and looked merely at the facts rather than what is the typical reaction for you (disagreeing and putting down those that you don't agree with) then you would agree with me.
I would like to thank you for voicing your opinion however. It was a good chance for me to back up my stance on this with some hard evidence. Criticism is always welcomed, and I appreciate the opportunity to further examine my stance on this.
Edited, Wed Jul 21 20:52:09 2004 by Vinas
I'm not sure about the effect of logging on forest fires, and to be honest, the areas the OP was talking about aren't the same kinds of areas as those Totem's talking about either.
However, one of the things that most "treehuggers" don't get is that modern logging doesn't actually deplete our forests at all. Seem strange? It's not really. In fact, closing forests to logging is what's more likely to deplete our total volume of forestland, not the other way around.
It takes a number of years for a tree to grow to a sufficient size for logging. The rate at which a forest produces trees of sufficient size is inversly proportional to the density of that forest. Trees naturally grow until they fill up the available area (both in terms of ground/root area and sky/sunlight area). As the area fills up, new growth is stunted.
Modern logging does not just plow down whole forests leaving nothing left. They clear sections, then move on. They leave the surrounding areas intact so that new growth can fill in the area they cleared as quickly as possible. With a large enough forest base, they can do this forever, and before they've run out of new areas to clear the old ones have regrown.
Given that demands for wood products is relatively static, the more total forest land you have available for logging operatins, the less likely you are to use up your forests faster then they can replentish. It's a pretty simple math problem actually.
What the treehuggers don't tell you (or in many cases, don't know themselves), is that we have more forestland today then we had 100 years ago. We haven't been depleting the forests. Quite the opposite. What causes destruction of forests isn't logging, but population growth. When you clear land for farms and grazing, you destroy forests. Oddly, the introduction of the automobile has had the greatest impact on our forests. In a positive way. A car doesn't take up X number of acres of grazing land in the way a horse or oxen did. You'd be amazed how significant that is.
But hey! Go ahead and protest if you want. I can kinda understand it from a "keep nature pristine" kind of way. However, logging doesn't have quite the negative impact you might think. Animals manage to do just fine even with roads around, and they don't clear more then a small fraction of the total forest in an area at any time, so actual impact on animal life is pretty insignificant. I'm totally confused how anyone thinks logging is going to affect watersheds either. Water manages to flow downhill whether there are trees around or not...
However, one of the things that most "treehuggers" don't get is that modern logging doesn't actually deplete our forests at all. Seem strange? It's not really. In fact, closing forests to logging is what's more likely to deplete our total volume of forestland, not the other way around.
It takes a number of years for a tree to grow to a sufficient size for logging. The rate at which a forest produces trees of sufficient size is inversly proportional to the density of that forest. Trees naturally grow until they fill up the available area (both in terms of ground/root area and sky/sunlight area). As the area fills up, new growth is stunted.
Modern logging does not just plow down whole forests leaving nothing left. They clear sections, then move on. They leave the surrounding areas intact so that new growth can fill in the area they cleared as quickly as possible. With a large enough forest base, they can do this forever, and before they've run out of new areas to clear the old ones have regrown.
Given that demands for wood products is relatively static, the more total forest land you have available for logging operatins, the less likely you are to use up your forests faster then they can replentish. It's a pretty simple math problem actually.
What the treehuggers don't tell you (or in many cases, don't know themselves), is that we have more forestland today then we had 100 years ago. We haven't been depleting the forests. Quite the opposite. What causes destruction of forests isn't logging, but population growth. When you clear land for farms and grazing, you destroy forests. Oddly, the introduction of the automobile has had the greatest impact on our forests. In a positive way. A car doesn't take up X number of acres of grazing land in the way a horse or oxen did. You'd be amazed how significant that is.
But hey! Go ahead and protest if you want. I can kinda understand it from a "keep nature pristine" kind of way. However, logging doesn't have quite the negative impact you might think. Animals manage to do just fine even with roads around, and they don't clear more then a small fraction of the total forest in an area at any time, so actual impact on animal life is pretty insignificant. I'm totally confused how anyone thinks logging is going to affect watersheds either. Water manages to flow downhill whether there are trees around or not...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
One word gbaji... erosion. That is the number one thing that will effect the water sheds.
1 post
"... or is the foundation of my life eroding beneath my feet? Eeeerrooooooooddddddinnnnngggggg! EEEERROOOOOOOEEEEEEIIIIIDDDDIIINNNGNGNGGNGNG!" - curtesy of Jim Carey
You are right, they shouldnt mess around with the old growth forests, its a "crime against humanity" as you said. We already have enough trees to cut down other than the old growths, but developing the land on National Parks? NO.
Does anyone other than me understand what he is talking about?
Edited, Wed Jul 21 18:01:25 2004 by ElZidCampeador
You are right, they shouldnt mess around with the old growth forests, its a "crime against humanity" as you said. We already have enough trees to cut down other than the old growths, but developing the land on National Parks? NO.
Does anyone other than me understand what he is talking about?
Edited, Wed Jul 21 18:01:25 2004 by ElZidCampeador
No, you aren't the only one who understands.
I know some people think that the easiest way to prevent forest/property destruction is to "thin out" the forests, but that would just be damaging the forest ecosystem. You also have to take into account that there are no roads in a lot of these places, so how do you get the trucks there? By cutting down more trees and creating areas that will cause runoff erosion and disturb wildlife.
What a lot of people forget is that the easiest way to prevent destruction from fire is to not build in those areas in the first place.
I know some people think that the easiest way to prevent forest/property destruction is to "thin out" the forests, but that would just be damaging the forest ecosystem. You also have to take into account that there are no roads in a lot of these places, so how do you get the trucks there? By cutting down more trees and creating areas that will cause runoff erosion and disturb wildlife.
What a lot of people forget is that the easiest way to prevent destruction from fire is to not build in those areas in the first place.
Logging isnt really a good thing. He must be refering to the fact that most forests need some "cleaning" done to them every few years.
Forest do need cleared out ever so often to return nutients, minerals, and all that crap back to the soil. We (edit...dam went a day like this....) do not need to do this as mother nature has been doing a good job at it for a while now.
And plus polution from the trucks, the earthermovers, the tree cutters, and bull dozers. I mean I dont know many Kenworths to burn clean...
Edited, Wed Jul 21 19:25:32 2004 by Donuil
Edited, Thu Jul 22 20:28:41 2004 by Donuil
Forest do need cleared out ever so often to return nutients, minerals, and all that crap back to the soil. We (edit...dam went a day like this....) do not need to do this as mother nature has been doing a good job at it for a while now.
Quote:
so how do you get the trucks there? By cutting down more trees and creating areas that will cause runoff erosion and disturb wildlife.
And plus polution from the trucks, the earthermovers, the tree cutters, and bull dozers. I mean I dont know many Kenworths to burn clean...
Edited, Wed Jul 21 19:25:32 2004 by Donuil
Edited, Thu Jul 22 20:28:41 2004 by Donuil
Logging is good for the enviroment. It stops things like what happened in LA and San Diego last year from happening.
Good point. So is droping nuclear weapons on places. No fires after you turn the place to galss!
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Many old growth forests contain trees hundreds of years old, delicate eco-systems, endangered wildlife. No matter which way they're logged, either thinned out or clear-felled, irreparable damage is done.
Plowing roads through previously pristine national wilderness only serves to allow further degradation by providing access and dividing natural habitats.
I don't understand how anyone can feel comfortable with the idea of turning a tree hundreds of years old into woodchips to be exported to Japan or whatever. Manmade plantations are the way to go, we don't need to cut down old trees.
Plowing roads through previously pristine national wilderness only serves to allow further degradation by providing access and dividing natural habitats.
I don't understand how anyone can feel comfortable with the idea of turning a tree hundreds of years old into woodchips to be exported to Japan or whatever. Manmade plantations are the way to go, we don't need to cut down old trees.
Vinas, I think that should read, "To cut down these forests (or even to allow the ability for that to happen) would be a crime agianst treemanity." Or large, unsentient floral growth-anity. Just sayin'.
Totem
Totem
In all seriousness, the term "old growth" National Forests is bandied about to call forth images of tall stately trees in pristine wildernesses, while birds chirp in the background, and dappled sunlight filters through a leafy canopy. The reality is those old growth forests are exactly what constitutes what burned last year in that horrific fire in SoCal.
While there certainly some areas of trees which exemplify those bucolic scenes of tranquility-- and those should be preserved and tended to for everyone's enjoyment --the vast majority of National Forests need pruning and thinning to keep the combustable underbrush and deadwood to a minimum.
Logging is a good thing, folks. And contrary to popular thinking, logging companies don't just bulldoze the land and leave, they replant trees and shape the land to mitigate or stop erosion.
Totem
While there certainly some areas of trees which exemplify those bucolic scenes of tranquility-- and those should be preserved and tended to for everyone's enjoyment --the vast majority of National Forests need pruning and thinning to keep the combustable underbrush and deadwood to a minimum.
Logging is a good thing, folks. And contrary to popular thinking, logging companies don't just bulldoze the land and leave, they replant trees and shape the land to mitigate or stop erosion.
Totem
Look, the **** growing in that pair of underwear hanging on your lampshade can be considered a 'delicate ecosystem' and probably is by some of the tree-hugging hippies who'd have you believe any logging is bad.
I come from an agricultural background and I've seen the good and the bad of logging and of not logging. I'll cite some examples from my personal experience. Many of my references will be from the viewpoint of both hunter and farmer, so anyone who is unwilling to think of me breaking ground to plant stuff in it (the horror) or shooting an animal (oh, the humanity!), cleaning it, cutting it into parts and eventually cooking and eating those parts....consider yourself warned.
Bad logging:
Stewart county, GA, circa 1985. Three logging companies purchased most of the mature timber in this county at the same time. Logging companies have found that it is often more economical in the long run to purchase the land outright, log it, then resell the land. Not only do they get to log without interference from a landowner who may feel they are overstepping their bounds (they regularly do), but they get tax breaks, major influence with local governments, ability to rent or sell portions of the land or certain rights (usually hunting). Then, they can often resell the land to developers after it's been logged and turn a profit on the land as well.
Well, all three of these bad boys logged the hell out of that county. They cut damn near every pine tree over 20 feet tall. Timber prices were high and they went the extra mile to make sure they got everything they could. Then, over the next 15 years, they divested themselves of the majority of the property.
Effects *I* saw:
Deer population exploded. It was not uncommon in 1990 to see herds of 75+ whitetail deer. All of them were scrawny, for the most part. Farmers crops: ruined by deer. Anything with a green tender shoot was either trampled in the process of eating or cropped off at ground level.
Turkey population did not explode but was suddenly revealed. Turkey poulation dwindled between 1985 and 1995, still slowly recovering. Reasons: inadequate range and cover as well as severe overhunting.
Erosion: Some of the areas, especially the already cleared fields that had previously had wind protection from surrounding timber suffered from visible erosion. Farmers took several years to adopt sufficient methods to cope with the problem.
This was a tiny county with only 2 towns in it. As of 1992 there wasn't even an ATM in the entire county...I searched hard and finally asked the bank president. This is an example of bad logging. Not because the logging companies didn't replant (they did) but because they didn't manage the resource. It was essentially stripped clean and rebuilt from the ground up. Marshy areas and ravines were the untouched bastions.
Good logging:
Wheatley's woods, 1970-1999. Called this because of the owner, one Charles Wheatley, deceased. A tract of land approximately 30,000 acres along the border of Sumter and Lee counties in GA. It was planted in pines when he purchased the land. Mr. Wheatley was a wealthy (obviously) construction company owner. He was a kind man and did not believe in doing something simply because one could. I met him twice and knew several people who had known him for many years. He allowed me unrestricted access to this tract on two occasions by request to retrieve fallen game. Otherwise, it was strictly off limits. It was patrolled regularly and at least a half dozen yahoos got busted every year trying to sneak over there to hunt or fish. The entire place was overmature timber. These pines were HUGE. I have yet to see any tree that rivals them in height (I gotta get out West and lay my eyes on some REAL forest, I know). Much of the local deer population traveled to and from this tract of land. It was a haven for deer and the only place to find a wild turkey for 35 miles in any direction (the turkey population is now much more widespread).
Mr. Wheatley passed away in the mid 90's and left the property to his only willed beneficiary: The University of Georgia (he had no immediate living family and the distant family received their handouts while he was alive). He had only one request and it was stipulated in his will: don't cut my timber.
A year later, word got around: UGA was going to go to court and try to cut the timber. It happened. Many locals, myself included, thought this was a slap in the face to a huge benefactor and alumni who had placed his faith and trust in the institution. We also thought it was going to ruin the hunting. Many of the proerties adjacent to this tract (separated only by a dirt road) were considered insufficient to support the existing deer population and our hopes of turkeys spreading out from the property to other areas seemed to be doomed. Many redneck lips were pooched out.
UGA proceeded with their plans and select cut the property over several years, choosing the areas to be cut carefully and making sure to leave the proper number of trees/acre. The property will be select cut on a regular schedule to maintain it at its current level.
I hunted two different adjacent properties before, during, and after the cutting of timber in Wheatley's woods.
Results: Deer population, healthier. the year the cuting was started a LOT of deer got shot. Getting the limit was no problem for people who normally can't even see a deer because they're so noisy/smelly/stupid. A LOT of genetic trash was removed from the population. I have never been a trophy hunter (I just like to eat well). One morning I shot three 'spikes', all within 20 yards of my stand. Lack of good instincts aside, a spike is just not something you want to breed. Well, none of the three turned out to be a spike. They all had non-standard growth on their horns near the base. Needless to say, we didn't want those boys breeding. These freaks (actually, their parents)had been holed up over there in those thick woods, busily inbreeding.
Turkey population: Spread out. With the decreased, yet still adequate cover, the turkey population did the opposite of what was feared. It spread to surrounding areas. I can now turkey hunt on several of my father's farms in the area...and I don't have to worry about killing off the only turkey. The population is thriving.
Erosion: No change. No new problems. The places that needed extra care still require the same amount of extra care. The ones that didn't still don't.
Overall effect: A large plus. The place is better managed, prettier, and less likely to become a raging firestorm if some yahoo gets over there and decides to be a firebug. Plus, there are adequate firebreaks now (no firebreak is adequate when burning trees would fall acroos is every 10 feet). The ecosystem is in better shape. New growth is occurring where it was previously shaded out. A black bear has been sighted several times by persons I consider reliable (and they won't shoot it just to prove they saw it).
Ok, now that I've related my personal experience with both bad and good logging, let me add this:
I watched the warmup debates for this on TV. The Republicans were going on about how it didn't hurt to have snowmobiles in Yosimite because the manufacturers have all exceeded the reccommendations put forth by the park service for keeping everything pristine. The noise levels seemed to be more of an issue than the actual gas emissions. The democrats wnated snowmobiles banned. The Republicans wanted the trams banned because they claimed the trams were far noisier and more polluting than the snowmobiles. They did not produce evidence to this effect. No Democrat produced any to refute it or argued that point, for the record.
I actually think this action is exaclty the right one. I will NOT write my congressman and tell him that this is bad management.
I WILL write my governor and tell him what areas I want to see on that list. I WILL write my state congressperson and do the same. I would much rather that this was handled by my state govenrment than the way it curently is being handled. Not every road is a bad thing. Not every tree should be sacrosanct. Not every pond should be fenced off and restricted from public access. I'll have more say in the way things are done if this is handled by people who are more local to me.
Vinas, I appreciate your concerns. I agree with the concept of proper management of natural resources. But I think we'll do just fine under the new system. I LIKE the revamp. I'm in favor of it.
/sarcasm on South Carolina still holds a grudge against the federal gov't, anyway. Who are they to tell us what to do? /sarcasm off
I come from an agricultural background and I've seen the good and the bad of logging and of not logging. I'll cite some examples from my personal experience. Many of my references will be from the viewpoint of both hunter and farmer, so anyone who is unwilling to think of me breaking ground to plant stuff in it (the horror) or shooting an animal (oh, the humanity!), cleaning it, cutting it into parts and eventually cooking and eating those parts....consider yourself warned.
Bad logging:
Stewart county, GA, circa 1985. Three logging companies purchased most of the mature timber in this county at the same time. Logging companies have found that it is often more economical in the long run to purchase the land outright, log it, then resell the land. Not only do they get to log without interference from a landowner who may feel they are overstepping their bounds (they regularly do), but they get tax breaks, major influence with local governments, ability to rent or sell portions of the land or certain rights (usually hunting). Then, they can often resell the land to developers after it's been logged and turn a profit on the land as well.
Well, all three of these bad boys logged the hell out of that county. They cut damn near every pine tree over 20 feet tall. Timber prices were high and they went the extra mile to make sure they got everything they could. Then, over the next 15 years, they divested themselves of the majority of the property.
Effects *I* saw:
Deer population exploded. It was not uncommon in 1990 to see herds of 75+ whitetail deer. All of them were scrawny, for the most part. Farmers crops: ruined by deer. Anything with a green tender shoot was either trampled in the process of eating or cropped off at ground level.
Turkey population did not explode but was suddenly revealed. Turkey poulation dwindled between 1985 and 1995, still slowly recovering. Reasons: inadequate range and cover as well as severe overhunting.
Erosion: Some of the areas, especially the already cleared fields that had previously had wind protection from surrounding timber suffered from visible erosion. Farmers took several years to adopt sufficient methods to cope with the problem.
This was a tiny county with only 2 towns in it. As of 1992 there wasn't even an ATM in the entire county...I searched hard and finally asked the bank president. This is an example of bad logging. Not because the logging companies didn't replant (they did) but because they didn't manage the resource. It was essentially stripped clean and rebuilt from the ground up. Marshy areas and ravines were the untouched bastions.
Good logging:
Wheatley's woods, 1970-1999. Called this because of the owner, one Charles Wheatley, deceased. A tract of land approximately 30,000 acres along the border of Sumter and Lee counties in GA. It was planted in pines when he purchased the land. Mr. Wheatley was a wealthy (obviously) construction company owner. He was a kind man and did not believe in doing something simply because one could. I met him twice and knew several people who had known him for many years. He allowed me unrestricted access to this tract on two occasions by request to retrieve fallen game. Otherwise, it was strictly off limits. It was patrolled regularly and at least a half dozen yahoos got busted every year trying to sneak over there to hunt or fish. The entire place was overmature timber. These pines were HUGE. I have yet to see any tree that rivals them in height (I gotta get out West and lay my eyes on some REAL forest, I know). Much of the local deer population traveled to and from this tract of land. It was a haven for deer and the only place to find a wild turkey for 35 miles in any direction (the turkey population is now much more widespread).
Mr. Wheatley passed away in the mid 90's and left the property to his only willed beneficiary: The University of Georgia (he had no immediate living family and the distant family received their handouts while he was alive). He had only one request and it was stipulated in his will: don't cut my timber.
A year later, word got around: UGA was going to go to court and try to cut the timber. It happened. Many locals, myself included, thought this was a slap in the face to a huge benefactor and alumni who had placed his faith and trust in the institution. We also thought it was going to ruin the hunting. Many of the proerties adjacent to this tract (separated only by a dirt road) were considered insufficient to support the existing deer population and our hopes of turkeys spreading out from the property to other areas seemed to be doomed. Many redneck lips were pooched out.
UGA proceeded with their plans and select cut the property over several years, choosing the areas to be cut carefully and making sure to leave the proper number of trees/acre. The property will be select cut on a regular schedule to maintain it at its current level.
I hunted two different adjacent properties before, during, and after the cutting of timber in Wheatley's woods.
Results: Deer population, healthier. the year the cuting was started a LOT of deer got shot. Getting the limit was no problem for people who normally can't even see a deer because they're so noisy/smelly/stupid. A LOT of genetic trash was removed from the population. I have never been a trophy hunter (I just like to eat well). One morning I shot three 'spikes', all within 20 yards of my stand. Lack of good instincts aside, a spike is just not something you want to breed. Well, none of the three turned out to be a spike. They all had non-standard growth on their horns near the base. Needless to say, we didn't want those boys breeding. These freaks (actually, their parents)had been holed up over there in those thick woods, busily inbreeding.
Turkey population: Spread out. With the decreased, yet still adequate cover, the turkey population did the opposite of what was feared. It spread to surrounding areas. I can now turkey hunt on several of my father's farms in the area...and I don't have to worry about killing off the only turkey. The population is thriving.
Erosion: No change. No new problems. The places that needed extra care still require the same amount of extra care. The ones that didn't still don't.
Overall effect: A large plus. The place is better managed, prettier, and less likely to become a raging firestorm if some yahoo gets over there and decides to be a firebug. Plus, there are adequate firebreaks now (no firebreak is adequate when burning trees would fall acroos is every 10 feet). The ecosystem is in better shape. New growth is occurring where it was previously shaded out. A black bear has been sighted several times by persons I consider reliable (and they won't shoot it just to prove they saw it).
Ok, now that I've related my personal experience with both bad and good logging, let me add this:
I watched the warmup debates for this on TV. The Republicans were going on about how it didn't hurt to have snowmobiles in Yosimite because the manufacturers have all exceeded the reccommendations put forth by the park service for keeping everything pristine. The noise levels seemed to be more of an issue than the actual gas emissions. The democrats wnated snowmobiles banned. The Republicans wanted the trams banned because they claimed the trams were far noisier and more polluting than the snowmobiles. They did not produce evidence to this effect. No Democrat produced any to refute it or argued that point, for the record.
I actually think this action is exaclty the right one. I will NOT write my congressman and tell him that this is bad management.
I WILL write my governor and tell him what areas I want to see on that list. I WILL write my state congressperson and do the same. I would much rather that this was handled by my state govenrment than the way it curently is being handled. Not every road is a bad thing. Not every tree should be sacrosanct. Not every pond should be fenced off and restricted from public access. I'll have more say in the way things are done if this is handled by people who are more local to me.
Vinas, I appreciate your concerns. I agree with the concept of proper management of natural resources. But I think we'll do just fine under the new system. I LIKE the revamp. I'm in favor of it.
/sarcasm on South Carolina still holds a grudge against the federal gov't, anyway. Who are they to tell us what to do? /sarcasm off
Wondering something. We do a thing in Australia called back-burning, usually done during the winter, to reduce the leaf matter and ground combustibles in high-risk areas for bushfires. It's ok for us to do this because Australian flora is naturally designed to withstand fire and regenerates very quickly, impossible to kill a gum tree with fire. In fact some native species of flora require fire in order to germinate.
Anyway as we share the common problem of wildfires/bushfires, just wondering if there is any backburning carried out in the US?
Anyway as we share the common problem of wildfires/bushfires, just wondering if there is any backburning carried out in the US?
Yup, it's part of good management. It speeds growth on most pines, too. I've carried it out a few times on smaller farms. You just have to pick your weather conditions and watch it carefully. Other than that, it's not too difficult to manage.
Yes, there is backburning here in the US. For a while it was frowned on, but in recent years it has been universally recognised as an essential tool in controlling burnable materials on the forest floor.
On a different subject, have you ever noticed all those aging hippies and enviromental weirdos drive old VW busses and ancient cars which throw out thousand times more harmful emissions than a newer, more fuel efficient car? Not only that, but they could be supporting their local economy by purchasing new cars. What a bunch of hypocrits. They'd do more for the enviroment by being ground up into a fashionably packaged high end fertilizer than for all the good they're doing being the screwups that they are.
Totem
On a different subject, have you ever noticed all those aging hippies and enviromental weirdos drive old VW busses and ancient cars which throw out thousand times more harmful emissions than a newer, more fuel efficient car? Not only that, but they could be supporting their local economy by purchasing new cars. What a bunch of hypocrits. They'd do more for the enviroment by being ground up into a fashionably packaged high end fertilizer than for all the good they're doing being the screwups that they are.
Totem
Let me clear up a few issues then for everyone.
1) Totem: The Roadlesss Rule doesn't necessarily just cover old growth forests (there's a difference between roadless and old growth, though they often times are used in the same context). Some of the areas would potentially be fire dangerous, but what it does do is allow for certain exceptions. Among these are exceptions for thinning, pollution cleanup, and habitat adjustment for endangered animals. So when you say that logging is a good thing; if you mean thinning and management to repair our mess ups; then you are absolutely right, and the rule allows such management.
2) Regarding watersheds. When tree roots are alive and kicking, so to speak, they take in nutrients in the soil, etc. and take up water. When trees are gone, even if they're not derooted, then erosion and other problems increase. The Forest Service itself says that in roadless areas the water, soil, and air quality is generally better. Further, logging doesn't just take out trees, it takes up a lot of the undergrowth that sucks up water and prevents runoff, and has roots which prevent erosion. Mining takes out such plants as well, not to mention completely stripping the surrounding area of minerals (but thats not the focus here). Further, road building (especially in roadless areas; those protected by the Roadless Rule) itself increases erosion, because water runs off of concrete roads as opposed to percolating into the soil and being filtered and slowly released there.
3) I find it hard to believe that we have more trees than we used to. We actually, as I've heard from multiple environmentalists, have only 5% of our original old growth left. We may have a higher density of trees in areas that haven't been developed, but that's not necessarly good. What we want is relatively untouched forest with the correct proportion of animals and plants, a stable ecosystem. In logged-then-replanted forests, as many of our forests now are, tree density is extremely high, which means the forest is not natural, and that the ecosystem is instable, as well as more fire-dangerous. These forests are NOT however the forests that would be protected by the Roadless Rule. So basically, keeping the original forest area pristine and stable is more important than there being lots of trees. Tree replanting projects often cause there to be too many trees (we put in 10 trees where there should be 1 in order to get the maximum timber harvest) which means fewer healthy and strong trees and a messed up ecosystem. We should instead use products made from recycled materials, tree alternatives, or support man-made plantations.
4) Animals don't do well when areas are logged. For one thing, unless selection or selective logging is taking place, the area that was logged takes years to re-develop. The trees are not big enough for animals (birds, mammals, insects, etc.) to make a habitat in for quite a while. Populations of animals can crash in the time (up to 100 years before a new habitat is usable) it takes for the forest to repair itself, or at least be hurt (if they only log part of the forest, as is often the case). Many animals are imperiled by logging, from what I understand.
5) Fires are an important part of the ecosystem, when kept under control. They are one of the only ways that the lodgepole pine releases its seeds. They are in its pinecones, and these cones only open up when introduced to heat. (Totem, don't start with the pinecones)
As for your points TStephens: you seem to know your stuff so thank you for posting. My goal in this is not to stop successful and responsible logging in places such as you described. But I would like for some of our forests to remain wild (hence the Roadless Rule) I agree that when a forest is kept nice, and logged (more like thinning and selectively logged) it can have good consequences such as what you saw in the wildlife populations. I however view this more as maintaining something, and it seems to me to be more artificial; almost like a park. The Roadless Rule would preserve the natural ecosystem. It leaves things in a more natural state, and this is by no means affecting all the forests throughout America.
When people who oppose how I feel about things come out with facts and evidence, backed by personal experience, and say things in a calm way, I am find it much easier to listen to them and hear their side of the arguement. Thank you for being reasonable in this TStephens, and I thank you for your feedback on this.
Another thank you: (while I did make an edit to my previous post about treemanity) when I said a crime against humanity I meant it because the passing of these would detract so greatly from our humanity. The ecological wealth that we stand to lose by destroying these forests is a very large amount. You'd make a very good editer Totem... you definetly notice even the smallest incongruities and you have succeeded in keeping me on my toes.
1) Totem: The Roadlesss Rule doesn't necessarily just cover old growth forests (there's a difference between roadless and old growth, though they often times are used in the same context). Some of the areas would potentially be fire dangerous, but what it does do is allow for certain exceptions. Among these are exceptions for thinning, pollution cleanup, and habitat adjustment for endangered animals. So when you say that logging is a good thing; if you mean thinning and management to repair our mess ups; then you are absolutely right, and the rule allows such management.
2) Regarding watersheds. When tree roots are alive and kicking, so to speak, they take in nutrients in the soil, etc. and take up water. When trees are gone, even if they're not derooted, then erosion and other problems increase. The Forest Service itself says that in roadless areas the water, soil, and air quality is generally better. Further, logging doesn't just take out trees, it takes up a lot of the undergrowth that sucks up water and prevents runoff, and has roots which prevent erosion. Mining takes out such plants as well, not to mention completely stripping the surrounding area of minerals (but thats not the focus here). Further, road building (especially in roadless areas; those protected by the Roadless Rule) itself increases erosion, because water runs off of concrete roads as opposed to percolating into the soil and being filtered and slowly released there.
3) I find it hard to believe that we have more trees than we used to. We actually, as I've heard from multiple environmentalists, have only 5% of our original old growth left. We may have a higher density of trees in areas that haven't been developed, but that's not necessarly good. What we want is relatively untouched forest with the correct proportion of animals and plants, a stable ecosystem. In logged-then-replanted forests, as many of our forests now are, tree density is extremely high, which means the forest is not natural, and that the ecosystem is instable, as well as more fire-dangerous. These forests are NOT however the forests that would be protected by the Roadless Rule. So basically, keeping the original forest area pristine and stable is more important than there being lots of trees. Tree replanting projects often cause there to be too many trees (we put in 10 trees where there should be 1 in order to get the maximum timber harvest) which means fewer healthy and strong trees and a messed up ecosystem. We should instead use products made from recycled materials, tree alternatives, or support man-made plantations.
4) Animals don't do well when areas are logged. For one thing, unless selection or selective logging is taking place, the area that was logged takes years to re-develop. The trees are not big enough for animals (birds, mammals, insects, etc.) to make a habitat in for quite a while. Populations of animals can crash in the time (up to 100 years before a new habitat is usable) it takes for the forest to repair itself, or at least be hurt (if they only log part of the forest, as is often the case). Many animals are imperiled by logging, from what I understand.
5) Fires are an important part of the ecosystem, when kept under control. They are one of the only ways that the lodgepole pine releases its seeds. They are in its pinecones, and these cones only open up when introduced to heat. (Totem, don't start with the pinecones)
As for your points TStephens: you seem to know your stuff so thank you for posting. My goal in this is not to stop successful and responsible logging in places such as you described. But I would like for some of our forests to remain wild (hence the Roadless Rule) I agree that when a forest is kept nice, and logged (more like thinning and selectively logged) it can have good consequences such as what you saw in the wildlife populations. I however view this more as maintaining something, and it seems to me to be more artificial; almost like a park. The Roadless Rule would preserve the natural ecosystem. It leaves things in a more natural state, and this is by no means affecting all the forests throughout America.
When people who oppose how I feel about things come out with facts and evidence, backed by personal experience, and say things in a calm way, I am find it much easier to listen to them and hear their side of the arguement. Thank you for being reasonable in this TStephens, and I thank you for your feedback on this.
Another thank you: (while I did make an edit to my previous post about treemanity) when I said a crime against humanity I meant it because the passing of these would detract so greatly from our humanity. The ecological wealth that we stand to lose by destroying these forests is a very large amount. You'd make a very good editer Totem... you definetly notice even the smallest incongruities and you have succeeded in keeping me on my toes.
Your politeness and courtesy makes it difficult to resort to my normal tools in trade: sarcasm, unsubtle jokes, and mimicry. And so I turn the compliment around-- you are a gentleman debater, armed with defendable positions and a good nature.
/bow
But hear me now! Should we cross paths again, I shall resort to the underhanded tactics and backstabbing modus operandi that I normally employ. Mwuhahah! MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA! Mwuhahahahaha!
Totem
/bow
But hear me now! Should we cross paths again, I shall resort to the underhanded tactics and backstabbing modus operandi that I normally employ. Mwuhahah! MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA! Mwuhahahahaha!
Totem
Then we have reached an understanding Totem?
Any questions, comments, concerns, poetry, short prose, etc. from anyone else? We could really use your support in this issue guys... even if that's only taking the time to go to http://roadless.fs.fed.us/#comments to register your disapproval (or support sadly) for the repealment of the Roadless Rule.
Please send me an e-mail if you would like to be involved or discuss this topic privately. My address is environmentalman2001@yahoo.com.
Edited, Thu Jul 22 19:44:03 2004 by Vinas
Any questions, comments, concerns, poetry, short prose, etc. from anyone else? We could really use your support in this issue guys... even if that's only taking the time to go to http://roadless.fs.fed.us/#comments to register your disapproval (or support sadly) for the repealment of the Roadless Rule.
Please send me an e-mail if you would like to be involved or discuss this topic privately. My address is environmentalman2001@yahoo.com.
Edited, Thu Jul 22 19:44:03 2004 by Vinas
Just a suggestion, Vinas.
Don't post your permanent email address on a forum. Bots will pick it up and you'll get tons of unsolicited spam email. Yahoo offers temporary email addresses that you can set up to use to filter spam. I'm not sure if they're only offered to MailPLus customers or to everyone who has email with Yahoo. If you have a need or desire to post your email address in order to expand your list of contacts, you may want to check into that or a similar option.
Don't post your permanent email address on a forum. Bots will pick it up and you'll get tons of unsolicited spam email. Yahoo offers temporary email addresses that you can set up to use to filter spam. I'm not sure if they're only offered to MailPLus customers or to everyone who has email with Yahoo. If you have a need or desire to post your email address in order to expand your list of contacts, you may want to check into that or a similar option.
Thanks for the heads up TStephens. I took your advice and twisted it a bit... made a different account for just this purpose. Unrelated to my normal account, so I don't really care whether I get spam or not, but still a way to communicate with others about this.
New e-mail to contact me at: environmentalman2001@yahoo.com
Edited, Thu Jul 22 19:47:14 2004 by Vinas
New e-mail to contact me at: environmentalman2001@yahoo.com
Edited, Thu Jul 22 19:47:14 2004 by Vinas
Something else I just realized, these forests are putting oxygen back out into the atmosphere. I mean thats like one of the most important things needed to sustain life on this planet next to water....
While these forests do create oxygen, that is not one of our significant points because it is not a large amount. The vast majority of oxygen is produced through the phytoplankton in the oceans. These forests do however, reduce the process of global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer (which is caused by pollution, and not trees lol). They serve as huge air-filters; one reason that the air in a forest is always so much fresher (unless that forest is being logged). Thanks for bringing that up though Donuil ^_^.
So we've gone from "Save the Rain Forest" to save our own forests, great. First come the roads which open the door to logging, camp grounds, then stores for campers, ranger stations and finally houses of people with enough money to muscle into these areas. May not happen all at once, but if we desanctify these areas it will be easier for any of these things to happen.
"...There behind the glass there's a real blade of grass,
Be careful as you pass, move along, move along...."
Edited, Fri Jul 23 12:13:07 2004 by Visagoth
"...There behind the glass there's a real blade of grass,
Be careful as you pass, move along, move along...."
Edited, Fri Jul 23 12:13:07 2004 by Visagoth
Logging is a good thing, folks. And contrary to popular thinking, logging companies don't just bulldoze the land and leave, they replant trees and shape the land to mitigate or stop erosion.
One, using the term "folks" instantly alerts anyone reading that you're full of ****. It implies that you're trying to make a chummy patronising argument to simple people who bale hay in the evening before the dusk praying and S&M activites.
Two, not they pretty much bulldoze and leave.
http://www.pefcwatch.org/winter2003/raatevaara%20clearcut.jpg
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 210
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (210)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- important political issue
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC